NTCOSS - COST OF LIVING REPORT - NT Council of Social Service Inc.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
• \
NTCOSS
NT Council of Social Service Inc.
COST OF LIVING REPORT
Tracking changes in the cost of living, particularly for Northern Territorians
experiencing disadvantage - Telecommunications
Issue No.30, June 2021NTCOSS Cost of Living Report – Issue No. 30, June 2021
This report was prepared by Jonathan Pilbrow, with assistance from Sarah Holder, Marissa Pattison,
Caitlin Perry and Kate Sieper
Published by the Northern Territory Council of Social Service Inc.
Email: admin@ntcoss.org.au
Website: www.ntcoss.org.au
© Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS), 2021
This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism
or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without
written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the CEO, NTCOSS.
NTCOSS acknowledge the Traditional Owners of country throughout the Northern Territory and
recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to their Elders
past, present and emerging. Aboriginal sovereignty has not been ceded.
Throughout this document we use the term Aboriginal peoples to recognise the diversity of language,
cultural practices and spiritual beliefs in the Northern Territory. The report uses the terms ‘Indigenous’
and ‘First Nations’ where original sources are being quoted.
2TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 7
INCREASE IN USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RECENT YEARS 8
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: A CRITICAL EXPENDITURE AREA 8
OVERALL DECLINE IN PRICES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RECENT YEARS 8
DIGITAL INCLUSION: THE NATIONAL CONTEXT 10
ADII SNAPSHOT OF A REMOTE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY: ALI CURUNG 12
POPULATION GROUPS EXPERIENCING DIGITAL EXCLUSION 13
MOBILE PHONES AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES 15
RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP CUSTOMERS 17
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS NEEDS OF PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES 18
EXPENDITURE PATTERNS OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 19
TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN REMOTE NT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ONGOING CHALLENGES 19
2020 REVIEW OF DIGITAL INCLUSION ACROSS REMOTE NT 23
SNAPSHOTS OF REGIONS/POPULATION GROUPS IN THE NT 25
IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY OF INTERNET SERVICES NATIONALLY 26
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING INTERNET AND MOBILE PHONE ACCESS ACROSS REMOTE NT 27
FURTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 28
GAPS IN DATA FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY 29
OTHER FACTORS IMPACTING ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AFFORDABILITY 30
REFERENCES 32
APPENDIX 35
3GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
The following is a glossary of acronyms used in this report:
ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACCAN Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
ACMA Australian Communications and Media Authority
ACOSS Australian Council of Social Service
ADIA Australian Digital Inclusion Alliance
ADII Australian Digital Inclusion Index
ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
ALNF Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation
BCAR Bureau of Communications and Arts Research
CAYLUS Central Australian Youth Link Up Service
CfAT Centre for Appropriate Technology
CLC Central Land Council
CPI Consumer Price Index
FTTN Fibre to the Node
FTTP Fibre to the Premises
GB Gigabyte
HES Household Expenditure Survey
HCRC High Capacity Radio Concentrator
ISPs Internet Service Providers
ICT Information and Communication Technology
Mbps Megabits per second
MBSP Mobile Black Spot Program
NBN National Broadband Network
NT Northern Territory
NTCOSS Northern Territory Council of Social Service
PIP Public Interest Premises
PPM Prepayment Meter
RICs Remote Indigenous Communities
SACOSS South Australian Council of Social Service
VCOSS Victorian Council of Social Service
4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like access to water or electricity, access to telecommunications services and hardware is essential to living,
working and participating in today’s society.
In 2018, 65% of internet users in Australia used it for studying or working from home.1 This figure will have
increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a rapid rise in online activities, including online shopping,
school lessons and medical appointments.2 Prior to this, government services had increasingly shifted online,
making access to certain services harder to acquire without internet, data or mobile phones. In the Northern
Territory (NT), the internet is also an important point of social connection and a vital conduit for accessing
information and services for people in very remote areas.3
This national digitisation push means that irrespective of income or location, daily life increasingly requires
internet access. However, the access and affordability of those services is not equal, and in the NT the digital
divide runs deep. The cost of telecommunications products and services has decreased markedly over the past
couple of decades; the uptake of fixed broadband services at home has increased, and the average consumer
now receives better value for money for these services.
Of particular significance to lower income households is the availability of more affordable plans and, in some
instances, provision of plans with unmetered data usage for essential services.
At the same time, this report notes the usage of services (particularly the use of data) is escalating and
expenditure on telecommunications has risen for some population groups, with affordability remaining a critical
issue. In addition, prepaid mobile services are more likely to be used by lower income households, as well as
Aboriginal households, and are generally associated with less value for money.
Households on a limited income juggle telecommunications expenditure with other essential costs such as rent,
food, other utilities, transport, medical, and other basic household items. People are often forced to make
difficult choices about what they can afford, compromising one need for another, particularly if unanticipated
expenses occur. The inability to meet payment deadlines can lead to further financial difficulties. The Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has expressed concern that the changing digital environment may exacerbate
the lived experience of people in poverty and the trend towards inequality.4 It is of extreme concern that digital
services are the least affordable for households in the lowest income bracket in the country, and affordability
has worsened for them over the last three years. ‘People on the lowest incomes in the country are paying the
highest rates’ for telecommunications.5 Addressing these issues is paramount.
Australia ranks poorly in terms of affordability, compared with other countries, ranking last on affordability in
the World Economic Forum’s Information and Communication Technology capability scoring.6 In 2015/16, NT
households spent the most on telecommunications in Australia. Due to having the highest average incomes in
the country, however, the NT was ranked 5th most affordable jurisdiction, in terms of expenditure as a proportion
of weekly disposable income.7 This average figure hides the pockets of significant disadvantage in the NT where
digital exclusion and affordability are critical issues.
1 BCAR 2020, p.7
2 Thomas et al, 2020a, p.8
3 ibid, p.51
4 ACOSS 2016, p.2
5 Smith 2021
6 Pavlidis & Hawkins 2015, cited in ACOSS 2016, p.4.
7 ABS 2017, Tables 13.8, 13.9A
5While the cost of products and services is a critical component in assessing affordability, it also cannot be looked
at in isolation from issues of access to infrastructure and services – particularly relevant to remote areas of the
NT. Overcoming digital exclusion requires more than just technical solutions; it needs place-based solutions that
combine multiple strategies and technologies.8
Many Aboriginal communities, outstations and homelands do not have access to competitive services. While
mobile phone carriers apply nationally consistent pricing, the range of available products varies across locations
due to differences in the coverage of both mobile network operators and mobile virtual network operators.
Interrupted power can lead to disconnection of Wi-Fi hotspots in remote communities, and the ability to keep a
smart phone charged cannot be assumed when a household may not have the money for power.
While this is changing, and more than 20,000 Territorians have gained access to mobile and broadband
communications through recent improvements in internet access and mobile phone coverage, there are many
Territorians in 2021 unable to access or afford telecommunication products and services. This is of concern for
many reasons including the fact that low internet access is strongly correlated to low household income,
disability, and unemployment, including long term unemployment.9
Around 25,000 Territorians are still without internet or mobile access where they live (excluding satellite
services), and many remote communities rely on slower and less reliable 3G networks.
Critically, given the speed at which many government services are becoming almost entirely digital, and the
evolving nature of the technology itself, there is also a worrying lack of data on the Territory’s digital divide,
particularly when considering remote communities. The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII), for example,
does not include any remote or very remote populations in its survey data, which excludes 22% of the NT.
Solutions to address affordability of, and access to, telecommunications services are highlighted in this report,
as is the need for improved data to better target solutions to those most in need. This report also offers
recommendations to improve access to affordable internet and mobile phone services as a matter of priority,
especially for people in remote parts of the NT. Addressing these issues is vital for the many population groups
within the NT who are missing out on full access to the benefits that telecommunications products and services
can bring. A well-coordinated strategy could help to close the gap in digital inclusion for Aboriginal people ‘in the
next 5-10 years’.10
8 As demonstrated in the Tiwi Islands where, despite recent improvements to access, people still face digital exclusion due to significant
affordability issues
9 Vinson et al 2015, cited in ACOSS 2016, p. 2
10 ACCAN 2020b, p.31
6REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
Improve data collection on telecommunications access, use and expenditure, including face-to-face samples
from remote and very remote communities and Town Camps
Recommendation 2
Ensure access to an affordable, concessional, home broadband service for households on limited incomes11
Recommendation 3
In partnership with Aboriginal communities, develop and implement a targeted ‘First Nations Digital Inclusion’
program with a focus on access, affordability and digital ability, and a focus on ensuring all Aboriginal students
have access to the digital tools and resources they need for their education12
Recommendation 4
Telecommunication services to provide free access/unmetered access to Government websites and other
essential activities in plans most likely to be used by low-income households
Recommendation 5
Ensure entry level plan bundles provide quality service including adequate speed and capacity
Recommendation 6
Upgrade the NT Library and Public Interest Premises (PIP) to allow them to take advantage of additional
unmetered data and extra download capacity
Recommendation 7
That residents of unserviced areas get equal priority of service as residents of serviced areas13
Recommendation 8
That the Federal Government increase the base rate of JobSeeker and related payments by $175 per week
Recommendation 9
That the Federal Government introduce tailored funding approaches for telecommunications in remote areas
11 ACCAN 2020c
12 World Vision Australia & the ALNF 2021, p.14
13 CfAT 2016 cited in ACCAN 2020b, p. 74
7INCREASE IN USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RECENT YEARS
Rapid growth in the demand for and consumption of telecommunications services and hardware has occurred
in recent years, while at the same time prices have decreased significantly. The uptake of home fixed broadband
services has increased, and the quality of communications services is also improving, with significant growth in
downloads of both internet and mobile data between June 2019 and June 2020.14
In 2019-20, Australia’s largest telecommunication providers reported 9.8 million prepaid and 17.6 million post-
paid mobile services15, with the total being 11% higher than the service levels in 2015–16.16 Such growth has
been possible due to the 4G roll out, investment in the 5G roll out and additional network investment in
broadband services in regional areas.17
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 caused a massive increase in the use of telecommunications
services. As a result of the pandemic, many essential services completely moved online, increasing the necessity
of access to telecommunications for everyone. Travel restrictions also increased the community’s reliance on
telecommunications for contact with family and support networks. This growth in reliance on
telecommunications exposed issues regarding digital inclusion, with many NTCOSS members expressing concern
regarding disparities in the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications in the NT. As a result, this report
aims to establish the current state of affordability of, and access to, telecommunications services in the NT, to
inform recommendations regarding future actions which could improve access to affordable
telecommunications services in the NT, especially for people living in remote areas.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: A CRITICAL EXPENDITURE AREA
A number of dimensions need consideration when assessing the impact of telecommunications expenditure on
low-income earners. The South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) described expenditure on
telecommunications services as being ‘essential, significant and regressive’ (see Appendix A).18
Expenditure patterns over the past two decades
Despite the significant drop in prices over the past two decades, expenditure on telecommunications rose overall
nationally by $20 per week, and in the NT by $22 per week with a slight dip in expenditure between the 2009/10
and 2015/16 ABS HES periods.19 In 2015/16 the NT had the highest expenditure in the country (approximately
25% above the national average), largely due to NT households spending nearly twice the national average on
home computer equipment (1.83 times more) and internet charges (1.70 times more).
OVERALL DECLINE IN PRICES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RECENT YEARS
In 2020, the ACCC began measuring both ‘advertised prices’, as well as ‘feature-adjusted’ prices, which includes
the impact of growing bundled inclusions over time, such as call minutes and data downloads.20 While price data
14 ACCC 2020a, p.1; ACCC 2020d, p.5,6
15 ACCC 2020e, Table 2
16 ACCC 2020c, p.6
17 ACCC 2020b, p.1
18 SACOSS 2015, pp. 3-4
19 ABS 2000, Table 5; ABS 2011 Table 27A, ABS 2017 Table 13.9A
20 ACCC 2020c, p.35
8is not specific to the NT, prices are generally uniform across the country, where products are available. Examining
prices for different products is critical for understanding impacts on particular income groups.
Price changes: fixed line broadband services since 2015/16
Overall, since 2015/16, advertised prices for fixed line NBN broadband rose and the feature adjusted price fell
by 12.5% overall due to increases in NBN plan inclusions.21 Over the same time there were virtually no changes
in advertised prices for non-NBN fixed line broadband 22 , but feature adjusted prices for non-NBN fixed line
broadband fell by 17.8%.23
The featured adjusted price of all fixed line broadband decreased by 15.4% since 2015/16 and despite the rise in
advertised prices, the average consumer now receives better value for money for NBN fixed broadband due to
added inclusions such as greater data allowances.24 For non-NBN fixed line users, the increase in value may be
negligible. 25 However, lower priced plans with less inclusions are not always available for budget conscious
consumers, as there are usually ‘minimum entry-level prices and inclusions for access to NBN services’. 26
Price changes: mobile services since 2015/16
Since 2015/16 the advertised prices for both prepaid and post-paid mobile services declined. Feature-adjusted
prices also declined over this time, likely due to ‘increased data allowances and/or price changes’, with the
decline similar for both post-paid (52.9%) and prepaid services (51.6%).27 More recently, there were significant
decreases over the past year in the featured adjusted prices, in particular for post-paid mobiles (9.7%) and
prepaid mobiles (12%), suggestive of ‘strong growth in data inclusions’.28
Price changes: mobile broadband since 2015/16
Since 2015/16, while the advertised prices for mobile broadband rose at the mid-range price level (7.7%) and
decreased by 15.4% at the higher end,29 the feature adjusted price decreased 56.1%, which suggests that the
benefits may be felt primarily by consumers at the higher plan level.30
For more specific detail regarding price changes in telecommunications over recent years, refer to Appendix B.
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data
CPI figures show consistent overall decreases over the past decade for telecommunications equipment and
services of around 24% for both Darwin and at the national level.31 The decline in CPI for audio, visual and
computing equipment and services has been particularly significant, down around 40%, for both Darwin and
nationally.32 At the same time, the ‘all groups CPI’ for Darwin increased by 15.2%, while the national increase
was 21% .33 Strong falls in the CPI in these areas also occurred over the last twenty years (see Appendix C).
21 ACCC 2020c, p.5,22
22 ibid p.28
23 ibid p.28-29
24 ibid p.21-22,28,63
25 ibid p.21-22,28,63
26 ibid p.5,22
27 ibid p.35
28 ibid p.35
29 ibid p.40
30 ibid p.40
31 ABS 2021, Data 5,6
32 ibid Data 5,6
33 ibid Data 5,6
9Impact of increased telecommunications use on Affordability
Affordability of telecommunications products and services is a significant issue for lower income households.
The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) describes affordability as ‘a consumer’s
ability to pay for and use telecommunications without sacrificing expenditure on other essential services and
items’. 34 The proportion of household income that lower income households spend on essential items is an
important measure of affordability, however a number of factors can influence affordability, and the value for
money consumers receive is impacted by ‘terms and conditions, payment methods, and up-front costs’.35
Additional factors impacting on affordability for remote Aboriginal communities include changes in the relative
value of access to the internet, which is likely to change depending on an individual’s life circumstances, meaning
that essentials such as food, electricity or fuel may be prioritised, when disposable income is limited.36
DIGITAL INCLUSION: THE NATIONAL CONTEXT
Digital inclusion is ‘based on the premise that everyone should be able to make full use of digital technologies –
to manage their health and wellbeing, access education and services, organise their finances, and connect with
family, friends and the world beyond… [it is] about social and economic participation’.37
The Australian Digital Inclusion Index
The ADII focuses on ‘household and personal use of digital technologies’ to measure the level of digital inclusion
across the whole population, and to monitor this level over time. It focuses on three key areas: Access,
Affordability and Digital Ability.38
Nationally, the level of digital inclusion is generally improving, with the ADII rising 12.4 points since 2014, though
recently the rate of increase has slowed. Steady growth has occurred in both the Access and Digital Ability sub-
indices, with Affordability the only sub-indice not to show solid improvement in the past six years.
While the cost per GB of data has continued to fall, Australians are spending more time online and using an
increasing number of data-using devices, and are purchasing larger data allowances and faster services.39 As a
result, household expenditure on internet services has risen faster than household incomes, leading to a higher
proportion of household income being spent on internet services in 2020 compared with 2014 (1.16% vs 1%) 40,
reflected in the decrease in the relative expenditure figure between 2014 and 2020 (see Table 3).
Affordability gaps
Digital inclusion is spread unevenly across the country, with income, age, geographical location, educational
attainment, and employment impacting on this. ‘In general, urban, wealthier, younger, more educated, and
employed Australians enjoy much greater digital inclusion’.41 The slight improvement in affordability since 2014
hides ‘the hardships faced by those households on low or fixed incomes seeking to remain digitally connected’.
There is a clear affordability gap, with ‘the proportion of household income spent on internet access by those
living in the lowest household income quintile [having]…increased every year since 2014 and now exceeds 4%’,
34 ACCAN 2016, p.5
35 ibid p.7
36 Rennie et al 2016, p.179
37 Thomas et al 2016 p. 5,6
38 Thomas et al 2017, p.10
39 Thomas et al, 2020a, p.6,14
40 ibid p.15
41 ibid p.12
10nearly four times the proportion of household income spent by the average household.42 The affordability gap
between the lowest 20% and highest 20% income households rose by 9.2 points in the past six years, with more
than 2.5 million Australians remaining offline, despite widespread access to internet infrastructure.43
Table 1: National Affordability ADII changes between 2014 and 202044
Overall Affordability Lowest 20% incomes Highest 20% Affordability gap
(Q5) incomes (Q1)
2014 33.1 69.7 36.6
2020 32.7 78.5 45.8
ADII figures: limitations and general trends in NT data since 2014
ADII results for the NT must be interpreted with caution given the limitation of small sample size (less than 150
surveys) which can lead to volatility in the resulting data.45 The small sample size also means the ADII figures may
not reflect the range of differences between different communities within the NT population. 46 In addition,
despite accounting for around 22% of the NT population, remote and very remote Aboriginal communities are
not generally included in the ADII data collection (apart from one remote community included in 2018 (NT) and
one in 2019 (Qld)).47 Data from 2014/15 showed 53% of Aboriginal people residing in remote and very remote
areas had accessed the internet in the 12 months prior, compared with 85.7% in other areas.48 NTCOSS expects
that high rates of digital exclusion exist in remote areas of the NT but actual data on this is almost non-existent.
The following table shows a comparison of National and NT ADII figures, comparing 2014 and 2020.
Table 2: National vs NT ADII figures change between 2014 and 202049
Categories Northern Territory Australia
2014 2020 2014 2020
Access 64.0 71.0 63.9 76.3
Affordability 57.5 54.9 56.0 60.9
Digital Ability 41.5 46.5 42.2 52.0
ADII 54.3 57.5 54.0 63.0
Despite limitations in the ADII data, some general trends in results for the NT since 2014 can still be observed.50
While the ADII score for the NT for 2020 is lower than the Australian average, this is only the second time since
2014 that the NT ADII has been below the national average and despite regular fluctuations, there has been a
general improvement in terms of digital inclusion over the past five years.51 Much of the increase in the overall
ADII for the NT since 2014 has been due to gains in access (despite a decrease in the Access score in 2020), up
42 Thomas et al, 2020a, p.6,15
43 Ibid p.6,15
44 Roy Morgan single source, March 2020 cited in Thomas et al 2020b, p.8,14
45 Thomas et al 2020a, p,45
46 ibid p.11
47 ABS 2017, Summary Section
48 ABS 2016, cited in Thomas et al 2018, p. 19
49 Roy Morgan single source, March 2020 cited in Thomas et al 2020b, p.1,7
50 Thomas et al 2020a, p.45
51 ibid p.45
117.0 points overall over this period. This can mostly be attributed to the rollout of the NBN to parts of the NT.52 In
terms of Digital Ability, there have been general increases across all three sub-categories.53
The Affordability score for the NT was lower in 2020 compared with 2014, having fluctuated in each of the years
since the ADII began, but the two underlying sub-categories of Affordability have been on quite distinct
trajectories.54 As displayed in Table 3 below, the ‘Relative Expenditure’ and ‘Value of Expenditure’ values in the
NT demonstrate that while percentage of household income spent on internet has increased since 2014, NT
households are getting better value for money due to increases in data allowances per dollar.
These same trends in ‘Relative Expenditure’ and ‘Value of Expenditure’ are evident at the national level, though
to a lesser extent meaning the Affordability ADII overall improved and there was not the volatility from year to
year as with the NT figures.55
Table 3: Change in NT vs National Affordability ADII and sub-categories 2014 - 202056
Sub-categories Northern Territory Australia
2014 2020 2014 2020
Relative Expenditure 64.1 48.0 60.3 54.7
Value of Expenditure 51.0 61.7 51.6 67.0
Overall Affordability 57.5 54.9 56.0 60.9
ADII SNAPSHOT OF A NT REMOTE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY: ALI CURUNG
In 2018, a targeted digital inclusion survey was undertaken with 112 residents of the remote Central Australian
community, Ali Curung (population around 500). This data provides a useful glimpse into the experiences of
people in the NT and the complexities of digital inclusion in remote Aboriginal communities more broadly.57
Table 4: 2018 ADII Figures Ali Curung vs Australia58
2018 ADII Figures Ali Curung Australia
Access 47.3 73.4
Affordability 25.8 57.6
Digital Ability 52.3 49.5
ADII 42.9 60.2
The survey showed Ali Curung had ‘a very low level of digital inclusion’ at 17.3 points lower than the Australian
average, and 11.5 points below the average for Aboriginal people across urban and regional areas.59
Access and Affordability in Ali Curung
Ali Curung residents had very low ADII scores on Access and Affordability sub-indices. Components of sub-indices
where scores were extremely low and concerning were as follows:
52 Thomas et al 2020a, p,45
53 ibid p,45
54 ibid p,45
55 Roy Morgan single source, March 2020 cited in Thomas et al 2020b, p.1-7
56 ibid
57 Thomas et al 2018, p.18
58 ADII Supplementary Survey, Ali Curung community, 2018; Roy Morgan, April 2017–March 2018, cited in Thomas et al 2018, p.19
59 Thomas et al 2018, p.18
12Access
• Internet technology (ADII 40.5), 38.2 points below the national average; and
• Internet data allowance (ADII 37.2), 17.2 points below the national average.
Affordability
• Relative Expenditure (ADII 39.6), 14.2 points below the national average; and
• Value of Expenditure (ADII 12.1), 48.8 points below the national average.60
The very low Access score was due to a high prevalence of reliance on mobile phones for internet use, consistent
with over-representation of Aboriginal people as mobile-only users in the ADII data. 61 While 90% of the
respondents maintained an internet connection, not one person surveyed had ‘fixed broadband despite the local
availability of satellite services’, and those using mobile phones for connectivity mainly used prepaid mobile
phones.62
The very low Affordability score (25.8) is consistent with other mobile-only user ADII data, due in part to ‘higher
pricing and cost structure of mobile data’ and expenditure on internet access accounted for a larger portion of
household income (2.15%) compared to the national average of 1.17% (2018 figures).63
Residents had access to smaller data allowances, due to reliance on prepaid mobiles and were less likely to use
the internet daily than the national average. In results that go against the expected trend for people who rely
solely on mobile broadband access, residents (52.3) scored above the national average (49.5) on Digital Ability.
This data is also consistent with qualitative findings showing that in very remote areas the internet is important
for social connection and accessing information and services. However, residents pay more than people living in
urban areas.64 The survey team concluded that remoteness may act as a barrier to digital inclusion, especially for
Access and Affordability.65
POPULATION GROUPS EXPERIENCING DIGITAL EXCLUSION
National figures: groups facing digital exclusion and implications for NT
Given the limitations with NT data, it is useful to examine other measures relating to sectors of the population
who are facing digital exclusion, as shown in Table 5. Australians with lower levels of income, employment, and
education experience greater digital exclusion66 and given that significant numbers of the NT overall population
are represented in many of these groups, it can be assumed that the same issues apply in the NT.
60 Thomas et al 2018, p.19
61 ibid
62 Thomas et al 2018, p.19; Rennie et al 2016, p.155
63 Thomas et al 2018, p.19
64 ibid p.18
65 ibid p.6
66 Thomas et al 2020a, p.6
13Table 5: Groups across the Australian population facing digital exclusion 67
2020 ADII ADII Score Points below National Average
Australia 63.0 -
Mobile-only 43.7 19.3 below
Household income Q5 (Under $35k) 43.8 19.2 below
Aged 65+ 49.7 13.3 below
Less than secondary education 51 12.0 below
Disability 52.6 10.4 below
Household income Q4 ($35-60k) 53.8 9.2 below
Not in labour force 54.3 8.7 below
Indigenous Australians 55.1 7.9 below
Aboriginal people in urban and regional areas
The ADII for Aboriginal people (urban and regional areas) has improved since 2014, and the gap has narrowed
between the national ADII average and that for Aboriginal people.68
• Despite this improvement, Aboriginal people still face much higher rates of digital exclusion than the overall
population and affordability remains a significant issue.69
• The Value of Expenditure ADII is much lower than the national average (54.3 vs 67.0) meaning Aboriginal
people ‘receive less data for each dollar of expenditure’ given the higher cost per GB of mobile data.70
• The gap in the access score between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians was 7.8 (68.5 vs 78.3), mainly
due to the high rate of mobile-only access, and this gap has increased yearly as an increased number of the
overall population have fixed NBN access, which is not experienced at the same rate for Aboriginal people.71
Mobile-only users
Over four million Australians access the internet solely through a mobile connection (including smartphones or
tablets and internet dongles with a data allowance), meaning that they have no fixed connection.72
• Mobile-only users have a very low overall ADII and a very low Affordability score, driven primarily by the
‘Value of Expenditure’ score of 17.2, which is a staggering 50 points below the national average.73
• Aboriginal people have an especially high level of mobile-only use, with 35% of the population surveyed being
mobile-only users, compared with 19.9% of the total population.74 It can be inferred that mobile-only use
(and therefore digital exclusion) in remote Aboriginal communities in the NT is also likely to be very high.
• Mobile-only use is linked to socioeconomic factors, with people in the lowest-income households over-
represented amongst mobile-only users.75
• High rates of mobile-only users are also seen amongst people with disability (31.2%).76
67 Thomas et al 2020a, p.6
68 ibid p.19
69 ibid
70 ibid
71 Roy Morgan single source, March 2020 cited in Thomas et al 2020b, p.8; World Vision Australia & the ALNF p. 5
72 Thomas et al 2020a p.7, Thomas et al 2017, p.6
73 Thomas et al 2020a p. 17
74 ibid p.19
75 ibid p.18
76 ibid
14Table 6: ADII Figures for mobile-only users vs National Average77
Mobile-only users Australian Average
Access 54.2 76.3
Internet Access 72 87.9
Internet Technology 57.5 82.1
Internet Data Allowance 33 58.7
AFFORDABILITY 34.9 60.9
Relative Expenditure 52.5 54.7
Value of Expenditure 17.2 67.0
DIGITAL ABILITY 41.9 52.0
Attitudes 42 50.3
Basic Skills 47.6 59.4
Activities 36.2 46.1
Digital Inclusion Index 43.7 63.0
Lowest income earners (Lowest Quintile Income Group)
• Lowest income earners have consistently had an overall ADII score 30 points below the highest income
households (73.8) over the past six years.
• Affordability is a major concern, with an Affordability ADII of 32.7, roughly half the national figure of 60.9.
• Of most concern is the decline in the figure from 33.2 in 2014, meaning affordability is reducing for the lowest
income group with the proportion of household income spent on internet services increasing every year
since 2014. 78
Other groups who face low ADII scores with low affordability a common thread include people with disability;
people in rural areas (though the NBN is helping to address this); people not in the labour force; people who did
not complete secondary school; older Australians (65+: the most digitally excluded age group); women;79 people
on Centrelink income support payments; social housing tenants; people in rental households; people in
retirement homes/aged care; low-income families and single parents living with children; students; homeless
people; migrants and asylum seekers; prisoners and mixed adult households.80
MOBILE PHONES AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES
Poverty premiums and mobile phones
Prepaid phones are often the only available option for many people experiencing disadvantage, including those
who have a poor credit history or do not have a fixed address.81 Prepaid services may be seen as a way to limit
expenditure, however, people generally end up paying ‘much higher effective rates for the same services’.82 This
is illustrated in the Tiwi Islands, where many people are on income support payments and are unable to afford
home Wi-Fi, and so rely on mobile data packages.83 This leads to most people relying on the purchase of small
77 Roy Morgan Single Source, March 2020, cited in Thomas et al 2020a, p. 17
78 Thomas et al 2020a, p.6,14,19; Roy Morgan single source, March 2020 cited in Thomas et al 2020b, p.8-14
79 Thomas et al 2020a, p.18
80 Ogle & Law 2020, p. 53; Davidson et al 2020, p.9; ACCAN 2016, p.4,11,20; Ogle and Musolino 2016, p.18; Goeury & McMillan, p.23
81 SACOSS 2015, p. 9
82 ibid p. 11
83 Rennie et al 2016, p 155
15amounts of prepaid mobile phone credit from the local store, which come with some of the highest call rates.84
Better value deals for data and phone calls cost more, and require access to the internet and/or a credit card,
which act as barriers to access for many residents.85
This means that low-income consumers often face a ‘poverty premium’ which takes the form of ‘an extra cost
which accrues to someone on a low income precisely because of their poverty’.86 Poverty premiums can take the
form of ‘fees and charges that are most likely to apply to those on low incomes, or extra costs because their
inability to pay denies them access to things which would save money’.87
Poverty premiums in mobile phone plans include:
• regressive supply charges impacting more on low-income earners (which can be explicit or might be
hidden in mobile phone plans);
• higher unit costs for small expenditures;
• fees and charges for late payments; and
• ‘data limits’, ‘lock-in contracts’ and ‘direct debit billing problems’.88
Some factors which contribute to poverty premiums such as the use of lock-in contracts and excess data charges
are now declining, and as a result, poverty premiums are also declining. For more on this, refer to Appendix D.
‘Hidden Disconnections’ (limiting or ceasing to use telecommunication services)
The lower levels of data generally included in prepaid mobile plans can have a number of implications including
lack of access when credit runs out, and low-income earners are forced to cut back or stop using services.89 This
form of hidden disconnection can occur multiple times to one individual in a relatively short period.
As noted by VCOSS, while access to the internet is as much an essential service as electricity or water, the level
of consumer protections against being disconnected provided by electricity or water retailers do not apply to
telco retailers.90 Furthermore, there is no hardship policy associated with prepaid services. NTCOSS supports
VCOSS’ call for improving consumer protections for people struggling to meet the costs of their
telecommunications service.
In remote communities where satellite broadband services are available, there is a clear preference for prepaid
mobile broadband. 91 Coupled with practical difficulties associated with satellite internet connections,
households are more likely to forgo internet than take up satellite internet contracts.92
Inherent unfairness: fewer services for low-income households
Higher income households have more capacity to spend more of their income on devices and platforms which
SACOSS argues creates an 'inherent unfairness'. 93 While low-income households generally spend a greater
proportion of income on other utilities compared to higher income earners, they get the same generic product,
but this is not the case with telecommunications. Low-income households spend more on services than
84 Smith 2021
85 ibid
86 ibid p. 9-11
87 Ogle & Musolino, 2016, p.37
88 SACOSS, 2015 cited in Ogle and Musolino, p.36-37; Ogle and Musolino 2016, p.36-37
89 Ogle & Musolino 2016, p. 15,36
90 VCOSS 2021, p.17
91 Rennie et al 2016, p. 180
92 ibid
93 SACOSS 2013, p.5
16equipment meaning they use ‘cheaper, lower quality equipment’ and and spend less overall on
telecommunications, resulting in access to fewer services.94
RESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP CUSTOMERS
The number of telecommunication customers requiring assistance from a telco hardship program provides an
indicator of the level of financial stress related to telecommunications expenditure. 95 In 2019/20, 19,671
residential customers entered into a financial hardship arrangement (17,000 fewer than 2018/19) across
Australia, with mobile-only users making up 83% of these. 52% of entrants occurred from March to June 2020 at
the start of the COVID-19 pandemic period, and under half of the customers exited the hardship arrangements
successfully, though this rate improved during the COVID-19 period.96
The large drop in numbers from 2018-19 and 2019-20 was most likely due to additional initiatives put in place by
telcos on top of existing financial hardship policies, as well as a set of principles agreed to by the Federal
Government and the telco industry for the COVID-19 pandemic period.97 At 30 June 2020 there were 9593 people
in hardship nationally, up 647 on the previous year.98
State/Territory comparison of residential customers in hardship with their telco
2019/20 state/territory data on the proportion of residential customers in hardship 99 reveals that most
jurisdictions generally saw the proportion of customers in financial hardship reduce from July 2019 to February
2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the proportion increasing from March-June (post COVID-19). 100 The
NT did not follow this national trend, however.101
Data for the NT showed a broad increase from December 2019 and remained at a higher level throughout the
reporting period until the end of June 2020.102 At the end of June 2020 the NT had one of the highest rates
of post-paid customers in financial hardship arrangements with their telco.103 This compares with the NT having
the third lowest rate as of June 2019.104 The NT data, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the
small numbers, meaning they are subject to high variation.105
Table 7: Telco residential financial hardship customers per 10,000 customers by state/territory 2019-20106
ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA AUST
Jul-19 4.86 5.96 5.2 7.18 6.74 4.23 5.92 5.72 6.17
Jun-20 5.63 8.02 8.39 6.65 6.98 5.2 8.74 6.51 7.64
94 Ogle 2017, p.5
95 The data published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for 2019/20 is based on that provided by nine
major telcos, meaning the data does not reflect all post-paid services
96 ACMA 2021a, Residential Tab, p. 9; Calculations of average debt, by NTCOSS, derived from ACMA 2021a, Residential Tab p.1, 5
97 ACMA 2021c
98 ACMA 2021a, Residential Tab, p. 1
99 Per 10,000 customers of those telcos included in the 2019/20 report
100 ACMA 2021a, Residential Tab, p. 2
101 Ibid
102 ibid
103 ACMA 2021b
104 ACMA 2020
105 ACMA 2021a, Residential Tab, p. 2
106 ACMA 2021b, Taken from Figure 5: Telco residential financial hardship customers, proportion of total customers by state
17TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS NEEDS OF PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES
ACCAN has previously aired concerns over the cost of services107, but progress has occurred over the last couple
of years in terms of the provision of more affordable lower cost plans. Market developments have seen increases
in the range of plans available, with more options available at different price points and increased data limits. A
number of these changes have improved outcomes for low-income consumers, including ‘a continued fall in
prices, in real (inflation adjusted) terms; increased data inclusions; similar pricing for prepaid and post-paid plans
(at the lower data inclusion level) and the availability of data-free content’.108
Increased data and call inclusions
There have been significant increases in data and call inclusions for prepaid mobile plans over recent years, with
most prepaid plans now having unlimited calls and text.109 BCAR stated that while these developments have
largely ‘been positive for most consumers’, they will not necessarily improve affordability for low-income
groups.110 In part, this may be because not all products are available in all locations across the country.
Prices for NBN fixed-line services have also fallen, but this has not necessarily led to an increase in uptake of
these services by lower income households. NBN fixed-line services could become more attractive to lower
income households over time as services offered by nbn™ and NBN retailers further develop.111
Increased choices but still fewer choices for prepaid mobile users
There have been increases in choice of data plans for prepaid customers, but post-paid customers still have more
choices112, with more than twice the number of plan options under 45 GB. However, prepaid mobile users can
‘recharge data at more frequent intervals than their monthly expiry’ if they can afford to buy more data.113
What consumers pay for a low-cost mobile phone plan?
BCAR assessed the basic data needs of an individual internet user to be 10 GB per month and at this data level
plans were available for $35 per month or less, for both prepaid and post-paid plans.114 For lower inclusions of 1
to 2 GB per month, plans were available for $10 per month for both prepaid and post-paid plans (though double
the number of options were available for post-paid plans).115 For 10 to 20 GB per month, which is enough data
for ‘a student with high volumes of lecture streaming’, fewer prepaid plans were available.116
Geographic location as a factor in the price of data
While mobile phone carriers ‘apply nationally consistent pricing’, the range of products on offer varies across
locations due to differences in the coverage of both mobile and mobile virtual network operators, with impacts
on choice and affordability, especially for people in regional and remote areas.117 In some regional areas, where
107 ACCAN 2019c, p.2
108 BCAR 2020, p.18
109 BCAR 2020, p. 22; BCAR, 2017, p. 22
110 BCAR 2020, p.18
111 ibid p.19
112 BCAR 2017, cited in BCAR 2020, p. 22
113 BCAR 2020, p. 22
114 ibid p.23
115 ibid
116 ibid
117 BCAR 2017, cited in BCAR 2020, p.25
18there is only one provider, it means less or no choice, which may mean consumers might pay a premium in certain
situations.118 This is evident in the lower ADII scores in country areas.119
Developments in provision of free/unmetered data without impacting monthly data allowances
For regional NBN SkyMuster Plus™ customers, some essential services such as banking are now unmetered to
allow continued access, regardless of data. 120 Telstra plans now provide unmetered IP addresses for some
educational institutions and resources.121
EXPENDITURE PATTERNS OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Australia’s poorest households (those in the bottom 10%) are paying 8.3% of their disposable income on
telecommunications, more than double the national household average of 3.3%.122 The proportion of households
considered as ‘low income, low spending’ has remained at between 0.8% and 0.9% since 2010. The proportion
of, ‘low income, high spending’ households, however, has risen from 6.2% to 6.7% between 2015 and 2017.123
At the end of 2020, nbn™ agreed to reduce the price of its entry-level access bundle for 12/1 Mbps (following a
recommendation from the ACCC).124 However, ACCAN is concerned this is ‘not an adequate entry-level option
for most consumers’, as the speed is inadequate for most people working or studying from home.
ACCAN is concerned that the new pricing structure will further disadvantage families who require higher speeds,
but cannot afford them.125 ACCAN subsequently proposed that the NBN adopt a speed of 50 Mbps, to support
essential activities of households.126
Low-income households may benefit from the inclusion of more unmetered essential activities in their plans, and
BCAR expects that ‘a highly competitive mobile sector is likely to support ongoing access to affordable mobile
services with growing data allowances’.127
TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN REMOTE NT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ONGOING CHALLENGES
There are over 400 remote communities and homelands throughout the NT, which presents an enormous
challenge in terms of ensuring digital inclusion.128
Phone access for Aboriginal households in remote areas
• In 2016, only 78 (20%) Homelands/Outstations had mobile phone network access129
• In 2016, around one quarter of Homelands/Outstations did not have access to either a payphone or
community phone:
118 BCAR 2020, p.25
119 Thomas et al 2020a, p.6
120 Fletcher (Min. for Comm. & the Arts) & Coulton (Min. for Reg Services, Decentralisation & Local Gov) 2019, cited in BCAR 2020, p. 24
121 Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association of Australia 2016 cited in BCAR 2020, p. 24
122 BCAR 2020, p.6
123 BCAR 2020, p. 26; ‘Low income, high spending households’ are defined as those households with household income that is less than
half of the median and telecommunications expenditure, as a share of income at more than three times the median. ‘Low income, low
spending households’ are defined as those households with household income that is less than half of the median and
telecommunications expenditure as a share of income at less than half the median
124 ACCAN 2020a, p.1
125 ibid
126 ACCAN 2021
127 BCAR 2020, p. 26
128 ACCAN 2020b, p. 29
129 CfAT 2016, cited in ACCAN 2020b, p.72
19o 76% (305) of 401 Homelands/Outstations surveyed in the NT had access to a public phone, and of these
phones, 274 (90%) were working at the time;
o only 197 (72%) of the phones were reported as being reliable; and
o 49 (18%) were subject to ‘minor disruptions to service.’ 130
Tangentyere Council has highlighted the importance of maintaining access and availability of fixed-line phone
services and public phone boxes in remote and Town Camp localities, as they are essential for contacting
essential services, ‘maintaining social connectedness including cultural and family ties and to ensure safety and
wellbeing, especially in the case of an emergency.’ 131
Concerns exist in remote areas around the ‘long delays in phone connections and maintenance, as well as regular
outages of public phones’ and the unreliability of payphones which are the only option for communication for
some people. 132 ACCAN has highlighted that ‘an upgrade plan is needed to replace ageing telephony
infrastructure and High Capacity Radio Concentrator microwave networks in many regions ‘to ensure ongoing
reliability and availability of phone lines’.133 This is especially the case in sites with no mobile coverage or fibre
backhaul.134
Internet services for households in remote areas
In 2016, only 37% of the Homelands/Outstations surveyed by CfAT had internet coverage, and for 112 (80%) of
these sites, the internet was only accessible at one house.135
Access to satellite internet services for Aboriginal households in remote areas
While the Federal Government has focused on satellite internet to meet the need for internet in very remote
areas, it is uncertain whether this response will be sufficient. 136 Navigation and management of ISPs’ billing
mechanisms and the application process for satellite services present significant obstacles to internet services.137
Issues include lack of access to telephones; confusing application processes; and ‘relatively uninformed
perceptions of remote community circumstances’ within services.138
More flexible and user-friendly arrangements and administrative processes for satellite internet are required,
particularly in the application, installation, and billing processes. 139 In addition, there is a need for payment
flexibility, noting the consumer preference in remote areas for prepaid billing and a system allowing prepayment
in advance for data allowances may be of benefit.140
Where satellite internet is the only option and post-paid billing is not feasible, intermediary organisations or
externally maintained, commercial Wi-Fi services could provide home internet.141 There have also been calls for
130 ibid p. 74
131 Tangentyere Council 2020, cited in ACCAN 2020b, p.78
132 ACCAN 2020b, p. 92
133 In the 1990s HCRC networks were installed as a replacement for older radio equipment. By late 2018, they were still providing
around 14,000 individual services to approximately 6,400 premises in remote areas, cited in Regional Technical Hub 2021
134 ACCAN 2020b, p. 92
135 CfAT 2016, cited in ACCAN 2020b, p. 72-73
136 Rennie et al 2016, p. 180
137 ibid p. 181
138 ibid p.170
139 Rennie et al 2016, p.181
140 ibid p184
141 ibid p.180
20the nbn™ to extend its fibre and wireless structure in remote and regional areas currently serviced by satellite,
to reduce congestion on Sky Muster in locations with high data usage.142
Access to broadband services for Aboriginal households in remote areas
Remote telecommunications infrastructure co-investment programs have delivered mobile telephone and
broadband services to about 23,000 residents in 45 remote communities since 2007.143 In recent years, mobile
phone and/or broadband services were delivered to 18 remote NT communities as part of the 2015-2018 NT
Government/Telstra agreement project.144 Over 20,000 Territorians now have access to mobile and broadband
communications as a result of these developments.145 However, ACCAN has suggested that with increasing unit
costs, it is unlikely that further co-investment programs will take place.146
The Federal Government has committed $220 million in a Stronger Regional Digital Connectivity Package147, with
the aim to ‘improve access to mobile and/or broadband services in Eligible Areas of high economic, social, or
public safety significance’.148
In addition, while policy objectives to improve internet quality are ‘desirable for services and businesses in
remote Australia’, they ‘will not encourage residents of remote communities to adopt broadband’.149 The NBN
will ensure a more capable internet source on outstations, however there is no single infrastructure ‘fix’ for the
digital divide in remote Australia.150
Access to internet through the NBN Sky Muster151 satellite footprint
nbn™ has developed the PIP policy to enable schools, emergency services, Aboriginal organisations, Government
services and health facilities in the Sky Muster footprint to access additional data up to 300 GB per month, and
currently this extends to around 100 Aboriginal communities.152 The Central Australian Youth Link Up Service
(CAYLUS) reported that only 150 GB per month is usable and all data is metered, as opposed to Skymuster Plus,
where only some data is metered.153 Increased data may be required to meet demand, with monthly download
limits not sufficient in some communities. Upgrading PIP satellite services to Skymuster Plus would address this
need.154 During the COVID crisis, nbn™ upgraded domestic customers to Skymuster Plus for no extra charge,
however did not extend this to PIP plans.155
142 ACCAN 2020b, p. 92
143 ibid p.30
144 ibid
145 Correspondence from NT DCIS cited in ACCAN 2020b, p. 30
146 ACCAN 2020b, p.30
147 As part of the response to the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review
148 ACCAN 2020b, p.19
149 Rennie et al 2016, p.20
150 ibid p. 37
151 The Sky Muster satellites launched in 2015 and 2016 by nbn™, to provide fast broadband in areas without fibre or sufficient wireless
antennas
152 ACCAN 2020b, p.35
153 CAYLUS 2021
154 ACCAN 2020b, p.35
155 CAYLUS 2021
21CAYLUS argues that upgrades to PIP satellite services would make them more affordable and ‘reduce data
issues’.156 CAYLUS has also recommended upgrading existing NT library satellite Wi-Fi hotspots to Sky Muster
Plus, allowing them to take advantage of additional unmetered data and extra download capacity. 157
There are some user pays hotspot sites in remote areas which allow for the purchase of data via a prepaid
voucher system.158 Significant concerns, however, have been raised about the cost of vouchers for some of these
hotspot sites, with reports of users collectively paying as much as $1500 per month to use a service that should
only cost $90 per month for 150 GB of data.159 CAYLUS highlighted issues with people using their daily free data
limit per device, with no access again until the next day.160 Given that devices are often shared between people,
free daily limits could be rapidly used up, meaning lack of access to essential services. CAYLUS has called for more
regulation of the rates of vouchers. 161
Mobile Black Spot Program
The Federal Government has invested heavily in telecommunications infrastructure for the MBSP to improve
mobile coverage and competition across Australia. As a result, a number of remote areas in the NT have
benefited. 162 There are a number of challenges in remote areas, as many proposed sites required ‘enabling
infrastructure such as backhaul and transmission networks’ meaning ‘it is often cost prohibitive to provide the
connectivity and backhaul to upgrade to newer technologies’.163
Where infrastructure such as fibre and radio systems do exist, improvements are often not possible without
costly upgrades of the supporting transmission equipment. 164 ACCAN has argued that Wi-Fi Mesh165 services
should be rolled out in those communities that do not meet eligibility for the MBSP or Community Phones
Program, which are generally sites with populations between 50 and 250 people.166
Rates of internet access for First Nations households: national and NT Figures
In a comparison of households in capital city areas regarding internet access, Darwin’s Aboriginal households had
the lowest access to the internet compared with Aboriginal households in other capital cities while ‘Other
Households’ in Darwin rated third highest compared with other capitals. As a result, Darwin had the greatest gap
out of all capital cities in terms of internet access for Aboriginal households compared with other households.167
156 ACCAN 2020b, p.35; CAYLUS cited in ACCAN 2020b, p. 84
157 CAYLUS cited in ACCAN 2020b, p.93; CAYLUS 2021
158 CAYLUS 2021
159 CAYLUS cited in ACCAN 2020b, p.84
160 CAYLUS 2021
161 CAYLUS 2021; ACCAN 2020b, p.84
162 ACCAN 2020b, p.17
163 ibid p.76-77
164 ibid p.77
165 Two or more router-like devices that work together to provide internet services for multiple households
166 ACCAN 2020b, p. 92
167 Radoll and Hunter 2018 cited in World Vision Australia & the ALNF 2021, p.7
22Table 8: Internet access (%) by First Nations household status and capital city* 2016168
Capital City First Nations household Other households Digital divide
Sydney-Wollongong* 82.3 88.1 5.8
Melbourne 85.4 87.9 2.5
Brisbane 84.6 88.5 3.9
Adelaide 77.0 83.3 6.2
Perth 79.4 89.0 9.5
Tasmania* 78.8 80.1 1.3
Darwin 74.4 88.9 14.5
Australian Capital Territory* 88.1 91.9 3.8
Total Australia 75.3 85.8 10.5
*Note: Wollongong is included in the Sydney figures and figures are provided for Tasmania rather than Hobart
Six other regions in the NT were surveyed along with Darwin as part of a total of 37 regions across the country,
as shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Internet access (%) by First Nations household status and regional area of the NT 2016169
Regional Area First Nations household Other households Digital divide
Darwin 74.4 88.9 14.5
Alice Springs 63.2 87.8 24.7
Apatula 27.5 78.2 50.7
Jabiru-Tiwi 53.2 81.6 28.4
Katherine 47.8 83.9 36.0
Nhulunbuy 55.7 90.5 34.8
Tennant Creek 45.5 83.8 38.3
Total Australia 75.3 85.8 10.5
The highest rate of digital divide was found in the NT community of Apatula, where only 27.5% of Aboriginal
households had internet access, representing a difference of 50.7% compared with other households in that
community. Nhulunbuy also had a high digital divide figure170, with the NT having four of the highest six digital
divide figures of all the regions surveyed. In each of the NT regions, access by Aboriginal households was lower
than the average access for Aboriginal households across the country.171
2020 REVIEW OF DIGITAL INCLUSION ACROSS REMOTE NT
In 2020, ACCAN undertook a review of programs that support telecommunications and internet access in ‘remote
Indigenous communities’ (RICs), and the gaps or outstanding needs that community stakeholders identified.172
The RIC Review identified significant improvements over recent years in communications infrastructure and
access by remote Aboriginal people and communities due to federal/state/territory governments and
telecommunications providers and other agencies addressing digital inclusion. The NT Government and Telstra
have partnered on several initiatives since 2007. The NT Government initially prioritised ensuring mobile
coverage to ‘larger communities of over 2-300 people and where there was existing fibre backhaul’, and is now
168 ibid
169 ibid
170 ibid
171 ibid
172 ACCAN 2020b, p.29
23You can also read
